- 37 -
agreeing to stipulated decisions when they or their counsel were
aware of the Government’s misconduct, had rescinded their earlier
piggyback agreement. Respondent urged that because petitioners
made a “fully formed decision to opt out” of the Dixon
litigation, they could not show that their decision to settle was
caused by the previously disclosed fraud on the Court.
This Court directed petitioners to submit replies to
respondent’s objections, and petitioners did so on August 20,
2004. Therein, petitioners maintain that permitting them to
reopen their cases and participate in the Thompson settlement
would be “the only meaningful part of the sanction” mandated by
the Court of Appeals. They also asked for a hearing on their
motions in order to highlight alleged intimidation of Kersting
project petitioners by respondent’s agents.
On February 14, 2005, petitioners filed a supplement to
their motions for leave. In the supplement, Messrs. O’Donnell
and Jones address respondent’s litigating position following the
remand in Dixon V. They ask that respondent’s litigating
position be characterized as a proposed settlement that includes
both a forgiveness of interest for the 12 years preceding 1992
and a reduction of 62 percent in the deficiencies determined by
respondent. They then ask the Court to impose this proposed
settlement summarily. Although we gave respondent leave to reply
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011